[humblegunner]

Dawkins brands those who doubt Charles Darwin’s ideas on evolution as “history deniers,”

And on FR, many brand anyone who believes in evolution as an atheist.

Stupid really.

[HospiceNurse]

As one signatory, Stephen C. Meyer, argues in his new book, “Signature in the Cell,” the discovery of the specified digital information in the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of DNA

Unless and until ID proponents produce actual scientific results. FR will be the only place they are taken seriously.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

“Civility”? Dream on! Things are far beyond the possibility of friendly discussion!

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

That’s all well and good, but I’m always “skeptical” of calls for civility that mention only one side’s transgressions. Then it becomes just another form of criticism.

[Jaime2099]

I am a proud critic of Darwinian evolution. No Darwinist has ever produced scientific evidence that shows random mutations can create such a vast array of wonder and magnitude. I’ll give some of them credit for trying, but they are far too arrogant about their philosophical beliefs seeing they lack science to back it up.

[Le Chien Rouge]

The only evolution I care about is the evolution of my soul and TRYING to make making myself a better person in the eyes of God.

[Le Chien Rouge]

The only evolution I care about is the evolution of my soul and TRYING to make making myself a better person in the eyes of God.

[freedumb2003]

There is no “debate.”

To debate you must be talking about the same subject using the same framework. ID and Creationists are talking philosophy and theology. People who understand TToE are talking science.

It is like saying there is a “debate” between astrology and astronomy.

[Moonman62]

Behe is not alone in his views. Over 800 Ph.D. scientists have courageously signed a “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism,” declaring that they are “skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.”

Funny how they always leave natural laws out of the mix.

[DManA]

No serious “evolution denier” disagrees that natural selection is a real force, and that antibiotic resistance must be fought by modern medicine.

I see posts that deny natural selection every day here.

[RoadTest]

“Let’s restore civility to the debate on evolution and intelligent design”

“Civility” ?

What fellowship hath Christ with Baal?

[verity]

Since it does not affect my life, I do not give a damn. lol

[Blue Collar Christian]

Yet another Evolution vs. Creation thread to divide and conquer. That, even though the article attempts an end to the division. “Fellow conservatives in-fighting on FR” headlines on DU would be so globally warming.

Both belief systems take faith that is only partially supported by science. We all should pay attention to the discoveries the differing camps reveal. If for no other reason than to twist it into our own agendas. 8^)

[CyberAnt]

You can’t be “civil” with EVIL or it will kill you!!

When are people going to get it ..??

[ripley]

“Let’s Restore Civility to the Debate”

You can’t argue with a psychotic Leninist...it’s just not possible.

IMHO

[OldNavyVet]

Once the rhetoric is toned down, perhaps we can have a real discussion about the evidence and find out which side’s skepticism is most convincing in this intriguing debate.

I'd like to point out that the above sentence would be more accurate if the words "facts are" replaced "skepticism in" ... giving us ...

Once the rhetoric is toned down, perhaps we can have a real discussion about the evidence and find out which side’s facts are most convincing in this intriguing debate.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Once the rhetoric is toned down, perhaps we can have a real discussion about the evidence and find out which side’s skepticism is most convincing in this intriguing debate.

Except that creationists have no interest in evidence. Otherwise they wouldn't have to lie and continually mislead their readers.

This is a transparent marketing ploy to sell more literature.